United States v. Savino Braxton
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6990
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Savino Braxton was charged with possession with intent to distribute ≥1 kg of heroin; a prior felony drug conviction exposed him to a 20-year mandatory minimum via 21 U.S.C. § 851.
- The government previously offered a plea that effectively would avoid the § 851 enhancement (10–15 years); Braxton initially rejected that offer and insisted on going to trial.
- On the morning trial was to begin the judge put the plea offer on the record (per Frye), Braxton again rejected it, and then asked for new counsel or to represent himself; both requests were denied.
- After the court repeatedly and explicitly urged Braxton to accept the plea (warning of a “catastrophic” 20-year minimum and saying it was “not favorably inclined” to a trial), the court recessed for lunch.
- During the 45-minute recess immediately following the court’s remarks, Braxton accepted the previously rejected plea; the court then conducted a Rule 11 colloquy and accepted the plea.
- Braxton later sought to withdraw the plea claiming judicial coercion; the Fourth Circuit vacated the guilty plea and sentence, finding the district court impermissibly participated in plea discussions and that plain error affected Braxton’s substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) | Braxton: Court repeatedly advocated for the plea, creating coercion and improperly participating in plea discussions. | Govt: Court’s remarks were permissible — Frye/Faretta required explanation and memorialization; colloquy showed plea was voluntary. | Held: District court plainly erred; its repeated exhortations constituted impermissible participation under Rule 11(c)(1). |
| Whether the Rule 11 error was harmless or affected substantial rights | Braxton: Close temporal proximity between judicial statements and acceptance of plea creates a reasonable probability the error induced the plea. | Govt: Braxton affirmed voluntariness during Rule 11 colloquy; thus any error was harmless. | Held: Error affected substantial rights — reasonable probability the court’s conduct led to the plea; plain error remedy required. |
| Whether Frye or Faretta justified the court’s comments urging the plea | Braxton: Frye/Faretta do not authorize a judge to recommend or campaign for a plea; their purposes were satisfied before the court’s advocacy. | Govt: Court needed to explain plea advantages/disadvantages to assess Faretta and to memorialize offer under Frye. | Held: Frye/Faretta do not excuse the judicial participation here; the court had already completed Frye/Faretta steps before its advocacy. |
| Whether the district court’s acceptance of Braxton’s on-the-record voluntariness statement cures the error | Braxton: A defendant’s statement of voluntariness to the same judge cannot dispel coercion risk created by that judge’s advocacy. | Govt: The Rule 11 colloquy contained explicit assurances of voluntariness. | Held: The colloquy did not cure the error; voluntariness statements to the advocating judge are insufficient to erase coercion risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (district court’s repeated advocacy for plea constituted reversible error)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (Rule 11 prohibition on judicial participation in plea negotiations and its purpose)
- United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 11(c)(1) clearly prohibits judicial participation in plea negotiations)
- United States v. Barrett, 982 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1992) (judge’s intervention on behalf of a plea risks coercion even if well-intentioned)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (defense counsel must communicate formal plea offers; courts may memorialize offers to the record)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (standard for prejudice in plea cases: reasonable probability that error led to the plea)
- United States v. Baker, 489 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (sustained judicial advocacy for a plea undermines neutral arbiter role and can be reversible error)